Abandon Government Sponsored Research on Forecasting Climate – Green

Kesten Green, now of U South Australia, has a manuscript up called Evidence-based Improvements to Climate Forecasting: Progress and Recommendations arguing that evidence-based research on climate forecasting finds no support for fear of dangerous man-made global warming, because simple, inexpensive, extrapolation models are more accurate than the complex and expensive “General Circulation Models” used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Their rigorous evaluations of the poor accuracy of climate models supports the view there is no trend in global mean temperatures that is relevant for policy makers, and that…

[G]overnment initiatives that are predicated on a fear of dangerous man-made global warming should be abandoned. Among such initiatives we include government sponsored research on forecasting climate, which are unavoidably biased towards alarm (Armstrong, Green, and Soon 2011).

This is what I found also in the evaluation of the CSIRO’s use of IPCC drought model. In fact, the use of the climate model projections is positively misleading, as they show decreasing rainfall over the last century when rainfall actually increased.

This is not welcome news to the growing climate projection science industry that serves the rapidly growing needs of impact and adaptation assessments. A new paper called Use of Representative Climate Futures in impact and adaptation assessment by Penny Whetton, Kevin Hennessy and others proposes another ad-hoc fix to climate model inaccuracy called Representative Climate Futures (or RFCs for short). Apparently the idea is the wide range of results given by different climate models are classified as “most likely” or “high risk” or whatever, and the researcher is then free to chose whichever set of models he or she wishes to use.

Experiment Resources.Com condemns ad hoc-ery in science:

The scientific method dictates that, if a hypothesis is rejected, then that is final. The research needs to be redesigned or refined before the hypothesis can be tested again. Amongst pseudo-scientists, an ad hoc hypothesis is often appended, in an attempt to justify why the expected results were not obtained.

Read “poor accuracy of climate models” for “hypothesis is rejected” and you get the comparison. Models that are unfit for the purpose need to be thrown out. RCF appears to be a desperate attempt to do something, anything, with grossly inaccurate models.

On freedom of choice, Kesten Green says:

So uncertain and poorly understood is the global climate over the long term that the IPCC modelers have relied heavily on unaided judgment in selecting model variables and setting parameter values. In their section on “Simulation model validation in longer-term forecasting” (p. 969–973, F&K observe of the IPCC modeling procedures: “a major part of the model building is judgmental” (p. 970).

Which is why its not scientific.

  • john byatt

    David, I have found you a temperature graph which could be used in your upcoming talk “Is global temperature rising?”

    http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/509796main_GISS_annual_temperature_anomalies_running.pdf 

    • john byatt

      So will you be using this graph David?

      • davids99us

        I will be using an Australian temperature graph over the same range, and a graph based on a more reliable homogenization method that shows 40% less warming over the last century.

        • john byatt

          So as stated above

          ” It was to give the reader access to an alternative viewpoint! ”

          Will you then be showing the NASA graph to those listening to your talk, as “an alternative viewpoint” ?

          • john byatt
          • anthony

            John, you are being a nuisance; if you want to comment on the egregious state of temperature recording world-wide why don’t you comment on the recent release of 2 papers, both unpublished, about temperature and temperature recording; they are discussed here:

            http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=13951

            Now, go away, do your homework and come back when you have something sensible to say. 

          • Ukinowispeaksense

            Hi Anthony. Still allowing people to think you have a climatology qualification? http://uknowispeaksense.wordpress.com/2012/07/16/well-done-anthony-cox/

          • anthony

            Ok; that is your take; here is mine:

            http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2012/04/qualifications-right-to-speak-in-debate.html?showComment=1333348561775#c4404363045633249290

            Are you saying I don’t have a right to comment on the AGW scam?

          • Uknowispeaksense

            It’s ok.I checked for you and it is still saying the same thing, so your answer to my question should have been “yes”. As for your question to me…not at all. You don’t need any qualifications to enter a debate but you do if you want to make an argument. Debating is about convincing people to take your side regardless of the quality of your position. Arguing, in the scientific sense   is about finding the truth, which given your history of claiming qualifications you don’t have, is not what you are interested in.

          • davids99us

            This is OT. Take your petty bickering elsewhere please.

  • Uknowispeaksense

    As soon as I saw you reference your own “paper” from E&E I knew the rest that followed would be nonsense. Only E&E would allow you to reference your own blog as a source. Classic. What a joke.

    • davids99us

      Zero content above.

      • john byatt

        here is the content davids99us

        REFERENCES1. Brewer,  K.R.W.  and  Other,  A.N.,  Some  comments  on  the  drought   exceptionalcircumstances report (DECR) and on Dr David Stockwell’s  critique of it, 2009.URL  http://landshape.org/enm/some-comments-on-the-drought-exceptionalcircumstances- report-decr-and-on-dr-david-stockwells-critique-of-it/.2. Hennessy, K., Fawcett, R., Kirono, D., Mpelasoka, F., Jones, D., Bathols, J., Whetton, P., Stafford Smith, M., Howden, M., Mitchell, C. and N. Plummer.  An assessment ofthe impact of climate change on the nature and frequency  of exceptional climaticevents. Technical report, Centre for Australian Weather and Climate Research, 2008.3. MAFF. Droughts to be more severe and occur more often in the future,  2008.

        • davids99us

          The report by Brewer and Other was on a preliminary evaluation, and their suggestions were incorporated into the final peer-reviewed E&E critique. Your second “content” is actually the CSIRO report “An assessment ofthe impact of climate change on the nature and frequency of exceptional climaticevents.” that was being critiqued in the E&E article! You really do need to get up to speed. No-one has disputed that in hindcast the climate models show increasing drought in Australia, but drought has significantly decreased in Australia last century. CSIRO hired a validation expert and has since improved their validation metholodgy in recent reports (eg http://www.cawcr.gov.au/projects/PCCSP/publications.html ).

          • john byatt

            none of which changes the fact that E&E have allowed a blog post as a reference which was the point that you seemed to have missed,

            Ajournal that accepts a blog post as a reference source is bad enough, one that accepts a blog post by the author as a reference is inane,

            concur?  

          • davids99us

            The reference to my blog (1) was to allow to user to find an unpublished critique of the article and was referenced with a footnote. “1 Two Australian National University statisticians have reviewed both the DECR and an initial version of this study1.” It was to give the reader access to an alternative viewpoint! Are you saying I should be more like your CSIRO friends that have not even acknowledged the existence of the E&E critique of their work?

          • john byatt

            Are you saying I should be more like your CSIRO friends that have not even acknowledged the existence of the E&E critique of their work?
            David submit the paper sans blog reference to a genuine journal and then they will take you seriously. 

  • john byatt

    If you are just doing Australia Land temps David, why not do the global land temps as well, found you another good graph

    http://images.sciencedaily.com/2012/07/120730142509-large.jpg 

    • kuhnkat

      John,

      could you provide supporting information or papers to show that NASA, GISS, or NCDC have actually done sufficient work to support their adjustments, implementation of those adjustments, and general methods of gridding. computing anomalies, and station verification and selection??

      Until this has been done their temperature series cannot be taken seriously. The recent BEST results are bringing all of these issue to the fore.

      • john byatt

        Work your way through this lot then get back to me at uknowispeaksense 

        http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2012/05/25/papers-on-global-warming-detection-from-global-temperature-series/ 

        more if you need them 

        • Kuhnkat

          Sorry John, I have already been through a fair number of those papers. They only show that there MIGHT have been an actual increase in temps, if the underlying adjustments of data are actually appropriate.

          Again, show me that the adjustments have been done correctly and we have something to talk about.

          After we finish talking about that you then have the task of showing that such a small increase in temps actually have anything to do with CO2 and after that you have the task of showing that it could become a problem.

          Good luck bud.

        • Kuhnkat

          Oh, and John, you are getting quite a reputation for attempting to answer questions that weren’t asked. You funny bud!!

Bad Behavior has blocked 57245 access attempts in the last 7 days.